Interprofessional provider attitudes toward the initiation of epidural analgesia in the laboring patient: are we all on the same page?
Epidural analgesia
Interprofessional attitudes
Labor analgesia
Journal
International journal of obstetric anesthesia
ISSN: 1532-3374
Titre abrégé: Int J Obstet Anesth
Pays: Netherlands
ID NLM: 9200430
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Feb 2019
Feb 2019
Historique:
received:
15
01
2018
revised:
01
08
2018
accepted:
13
08
2018
pubmed:
25
9
2018
medline:
20
8
2019
entrez:
25
9
2018
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
The timing of initiation of neuraxial labor analgesia should ultimately depend on patient preference although obstetricians, anesthesiologists and nurses may influence decision-making. We hypothesized that provider groups would have similar attitudes toward the timing of epidural placement, but some identifiable differences could be used to improve understanding and communication among providers. Anesthesiologists, nurses and obstetricians completed a survey assessing their knowledge and attitudes on the timing of epidural placement in specified clinical circumstances. Anesthesiologists (100%) and nurses (86.2%) reported being more familiar with epidural management than obstetricians (43.3%, P <0.01). The willingness of providers to advocate epidural placement based on the magnitude of cervical dilation was similar, although at 10 cm dilatation obstetricians (73.3%) were significantly more likely to advocate neuraxial block compared to both nurses (27.6%, P <0.01) and anesthesiologists (36.7%, P <0.01). The impact of patient factors and clinical circumstances on the timing of neuraxial block placement showed significant differences among provider groups in five of 24 areas assessed, including patient desire for an epidural, primigravid patients without membrane rupture, oxytocin infusion initiated, labor epidural in a previous pregnancy, and a difficult airway. There were differences between providers in factors that may impact the timing of epidural placement and in their self-perceived familiarity with epidural management. These present an opportunity for furthering interprofessional education and collaboration.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
The timing of initiation of neuraxial labor analgesia should ultimately depend on patient preference although obstetricians, anesthesiologists and nurses may influence decision-making. We hypothesized that provider groups would have similar attitudes toward the timing of epidural placement, but some identifiable differences could be used to improve understanding and communication among providers.
METHODS
METHODS
Anesthesiologists, nurses and obstetricians completed a survey assessing their knowledge and attitudes on the timing of epidural placement in specified clinical circumstances.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Anesthesiologists (100%) and nurses (86.2%) reported being more familiar with epidural management than obstetricians (43.3%, P <0.01). The willingness of providers to advocate epidural placement based on the magnitude of cervical dilation was similar, although at 10 cm dilatation obstetricians (73.3%) were significantly more likely to advocate neuraxial block compared to both nurses (27.6%, P <0.01) and anesthesiologists (36.7%, P <0.01). The impact of patient factors and clinical circumstances on the timing of neuraxial block placement showed significant differences among provider groups in five of 24 areas assessed, including patient desire for an epidural, primigravid patients without membrane rupture, oxytocin infusion initiated, labor epidural in a previous pregnancy, and a difficult airway.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
There were differences between providers in factors that may impact the timing of epidural placement and in their self-perceived familiarity with epidural management. These present an opportunity for furthering interprofessional education and collaboration.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30245261
pii: S0959-289X(18)30032-3
doi: 10.1016/j.ijoa.2018.08.007
pii:
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Pagination
57-67Informations de copyright
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.